RLFANS.COM
Celebrating
22 years service to
the Rugby League
Community!
WWW.RLFANS.COM • View topic - Hookers
Hookers Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:44 am  
MillennialRhino Stevo's Armpit

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:31 pm
Posts: 45
Hi all. Long-time reader, first-time commenter. Asking about something that has often bugged me.

Ever since becoming more committed/sentient as a rhinos fan, hooker has always seemed to be a constant weakness for Leeds (it may have been fine before my time and/or back in my earlier years, but I didn’t pay as much attention back then and probably didn’t really notice Buderus or Diskin that much. Lunt seemed ideal but had to go back to Hudds after his loan year. Burrow was great impact hooker but was clearly not a specialist nor a traditional option. Parcel was also good addition for a while but not sure what happened there (and I can’t remember who was 2nd hooker with him). Plus a string of seemingly disappointing or unsettled overseas signings, and a number of youngsters who seemed relied upon too early and/or not given long enough to build)

Now, I have a real soft spot for Dwyer, and with the addition of Leeming we now seem to have two proper decent 1st team specialist hookers for the first time since I can remember. Both English and hopefully well-settled too, which should be a big plus for retention and future-proofing.

So, now that we are in a period of relative riches in terms of hooker potential, maybe we can reflect a bit more on the darker ages:

Any thoughts on any of the following?
Q1. Why did we struggle so much for so long at hooker?

Q2. Why did we get keep on getting rid of our youngsters when we had them and potentially there could’ve been an argument for keeping hold rather than getting rid without replacement? (E.g. McShane, Hood, others I can’t remember)

Q3. :wink: Did we keep on winning trophies DESPITE our hooker difficulties or BECAUSE of our hooker difficulties? Is the common theory that hooker is one of the most important positions on the field actually unfounded? Does the rhinos’ golden decade prove that hookers are in fact one of the least important positions on the field? :wink:

Q4. And finally, am I completely misremembering the last couple of decades? Apologies if so, I’ve been a little preoccupied….
Re: Hookers Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:25 pm  
The Ghost of '99 User avatar
Free-scoring winger
Free-scoring winger

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:45 pm
Posts: 1902
Location: Desperation Island
McShane was the designated future hooker. He needed to develop, in some areas quite a bit, but in his case in particular I hold Brian McDermott largely responsible for that not working out.
After Buderus left McShane should have been given the role full time - and he did get the number 9 shirt - but McDermott never seemed to fully trust him so we often had Burrow starting at hooker rather than on the bench (a nonesense use of both players strengths) and then Lunt came in and we even saw Sinfield play there sometimes.

For whatever reason Powell has been able to get at something which McDermott couldn't and that is a great shame given the revolving door the starting hooker position has been since Buderus left.
"Brian McDermott, with a wry smile, nods when asked if he remembers a specific incident which made him realise he was a prick. 'I do', he murmurs."
Re: Hookers Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:50 pm  

User avatarhomme vaste wrote:
homme vaste User avatar
Free-scoring winger
Free-scoring winger

Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:11 pm
Posts: 2287
Location: Tomorrowland
Re the question on Hooker been one of the most important positions on the field, IMO I think that is wholly dependant on the job the hooker is asked to do in his team, some are asked to provide the team with another dimension to there attack to take pressure off the pivots, others are asked to provide a decent pass off the floor and tackle hard down the middle, some are even asked to control the game i.e. Cam Smith.

I think Leeds over the last 10/15 years have been blessed with some great play makers, that then frees the hooking role up to be anything that adds value (Beyond the basics of a 9) to the threat that is already there at the coaches discretion, maybe since you have lost those special players that can really control a game over the last 4/5 years you have noticed the lack of real quality at 9?
Re: Hookers Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:00 pm  

User avatarDHM wrote:
DHM User avatar
Silver RLFANS Member
Silver RLFANS Member

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 4:13 pm
Posts: 8862
Location: Garth's Darkplace.
Aiton was a very good signing and he worked really well with that team in 2015. We really struggled when he broke his arm and almost ran out of gas that season. Almost.

Not had a lot of luck with 9's for while, for various reasons it's just not worked out for a lot of guys. McShane, Lunt, Aiton, Baffoon/Balloon (whatever the f his name was), Segeyaro. Clubs been trying.
"Well, I think in Rugby League if you head butt someone there's normally some repercusions"
Re: Hookers Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:17 pm  
MillennialRhino Stevo's Armpit

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:31 pm
Posts: 45
Thanks all for your comments.

Related but different point.

Personally I would like to see Dwyer getting used a lot more than he was used last season (congested fixtures aside). I see the benefit of using him against tired bodies, but I keep on thinking what it would be like to try 20mins per hooker per half.

I remember when warrington used to do something similar with both Monaghan and Higham playing equal-ish mins, and thinking that it seemed to work really well. And then wondering for the next decade why I never really saw that again. (Maybe these are more of my faulty memories….)

Now that we have two decent and complementary options I keep dreaming of Leeming and Dwyer both being able to really knacker themselves out for 20min spells rather than Leeming holding back because he’s doing longer mins, or Dwyer trying to do too much because he only gets 5 or 10 min spells when the game’s already done.

Can the more knowledgeable amongst you explain to me why such a tactic wouldn’t be worth a try? Is it as simple as sub rotations for props and big fellas?
Re: Hookers Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:11 pm  

doc-rhino wrote:
doc-rhino Free-scoring winger
Free-scoring winger

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:55 pm
Posts: 1302
should they now be called middle middles
Re: Hookers Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:13 pm  

Simmo71 wrote:
Simmo71 Eddie Hemmings's Wig
Eddie Hemmings's Wig

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:24 pm
Posts: 237
The two options we have at the moment are very different.
Dwyer is erratic and unpredictable and a terrible passer of the ball. But he can cause tiring defences problems when he’s direct from dummy half.
Leeming is a much better passer from DH and is better at getting the ball moving quickly, you can see him talking to / encouraging the ball player to Get on with it. He’s also stronger in defence.
So, for me, always start with Leeming as he’s more reliable, but use Dwyer for bursts of action when we need something different or the opposition are tiring. 2 x 10-15 minute spells.
We've been trying to find the right 9 since Buderus left, but not had much luck for various reasons (loss of form, returned home, not good enough!)
I agree with previous post - it should have been McShane, but he was allowed to go.
And in the last 5 years or so, more teams have gone with 2 hookers in the 17, which has changed the thinking a bit.
Re: Hookers Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:26 pm  

User avatarKaeruJim wrote:
KaeruJim User avatar
Free-scoring winger
Free-scoring winger

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:27 am
Posts: 2352
I’m going to be controversial again here and say I’d rather we had one Daryl Clark than a Leeming and a Dwyer. We seem locked in this thinking from the Burrow years that we need to play two hookers.

I’d rather we had one superb hooker and then free a bench spot for another position.

Dwyer doesn’t have a good passing game; Leeming is arguably more complete but I’d like to see him step up a bit this year now he’s settled and hopefully over injury.
Re: Hookers Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:19 pm  
The Biffs Back User avatar
Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:19 am
Posts: 4662
The Ghost of '99 wrote:
McShane was the designated future hooker. He needed to develop, in some areas quite a bit, but in his case in particular I hold Brian McDermott largely responsible for that not working out.
After Buderus left McShane should have been given the role full time - and he did get the number 9 shirt - but McDermott never seemed to fully trust him so we often had Burrow starting at hooker rather than on the bench (a nonesense use of both players strengths) and then Lunt came in and we even saw Sinfield play there sometimes.

For whatever reason Powell has been able to get at something which McDermott couldn't and that is a great shame given the revolving door the starting hooker position has been since Buderus left.


I agree 100% that Brian Mac never trusted Macca to be the long term starting 9 whilst under his tenure as head coach.

Macca has always been a 9 that plays what is in front of him rather than sticking to the structured approach that Brian Mac preferred.
Daryll Powell got the best out of Macca by letting him control the ruck area and by also making sure that he he gave the ball to Gale when he wanted it, They were a great 9/7 combo

Macca is definitely one that we let go far too soon and who would have still been the starting 9 in 2021 for me
"...To those people that wrote this team off...
to all those that criticised this team...
tonight's for you"

Sir Kevin Sinfield
Re: Hookers Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:38 pm  

doc-rhino wrote:
doc-rhino Free-scoring winger
Free-scoring winger

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:55 pm
Posts: 1302
KaeruJim wrote:
I’m going to be controversial again here and say I’d rather we had one Daryl Clark than a Leeming and a Dwyer. We seem locked in this thinking from the Burrow years that we need to play two hookers.

I’d rather we had one superb hooker and then free a bench spot for another position.

Dwyer doesn’t have a good passing game; Leeming is arguably more complete but I’d like to see him step up a bit this year now he’s settled and hopefully over injury.



goes back to jackson and newton before the burroow years and diskin /buderus
Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArthurClues, cheekydiddles, Dadsylad, ducknumber1, exiledrhino, FGB, Google Adsense [Bot], KaeruJim, Lprhino, Midge_rhinos, Rugby Raider, Seth, tad rhino and 240 guests

Quick Reply



Subject:
Message:

   
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.

Return to Leeds Rhinos - southstander.com


POSTSONLINEMEMBERSRECORDTEAM
5,184,4161,08178,6739,567LOGIN
LOGIN HERE
or REGISTER for more features!.
When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
YOU HAVE RL CHAT OFF
RLFANS Match Centre
Sun 25th Jul
CH
LIVE
Sheffield28-40Halifax
CH
LIVE
Batley42-12Newcastle
CH
LIVE
Bradford30-36Featherstone
CH
LIVE
Whitehaven28-24Oldham
CH
LIVE
York46-10Swinton
L1
LIVE
Barrow40-12Coventry
L1
LIVE
Hunslet20-20Keighley
WSL
LIVE
YorkW0-0Hudds W
NRL
LIVE
St.George10-32Gold Coast
NRL
LIVE
Canterbury24-44Cronulla
Sat 24th Jul
NRL RND: 19 Souths60-22NZ Warriors
NRL RND: 19 Manly44-24Wests
NRL RND: 19 Penrith18-12Brisbane
L1 RND: 12 LondonS46-30West Wales
SL RND: 13 Catalans32-30Hull KR
Fri 23rd Jul
NRL RND: 19 Sydney28-8Newcastle
NRL RND: 19 NQL Cowboys16-20Melbourne
SL RND: 15 Leeds38-16Salford
SLRND: 15 Wigan25-12Wakefield
Thu 22nd Jul
NRL RND: 19 Parramatta10-12Canberra
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
National Rugby League 2021 ROUND : 18
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Melbourne 17 632 198 434 30
Penrith 17 493 179 314 30
Souths 17 503 346 157 28
Parramatta 17 474 255 219 26
Sydney 17 453 335 118 22
Manly 17 485 354 131 20
St.George 17 358 382 -24 16
Cronulla 17 326 394 -68 14
 
Canberra 17 347 421 -74 14
Newcastle 17 283 420 -137 14
Gold Coast 17 394 468 -74 12
Wests 17 372 502 -130 12
NQL Cowboys 17 324 527 -203 12
NZ Warriors 17 333 426 -93 10
Brisbane 17 282 542 -260 8
Canterbury 17 212 522 -310 4
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
Betfred Super League XXVI ROUND : 15
 PLDFADIFFPTSDIFFWP%
Catalans 14 419 226 193 26 185.40 92.86
St.Helens 12 286 96 190 20 297.92 83.33
Warrington 13 408 213 195 19 191.55 73.08
Wigan 15 247 268 -21 20 92.16 66.67
Hull FC 12 286 215 71 15 133.02 62.50
Hull KR 11 271 244 27 12 111.07 54.55
 
Leeds 14 332 251 81 14 132.27 50
Castleford 14 251 354 -103 12 70.90 42.86
Salford 14 237 405 -168 8 58.52 28.57
Huddersfield 15 244 318 -74 8 76.73 26.67
Wakefield 15 259 354 -95 8 73.16 26.67
Leigh 13 212 508 -296 0 41.73 0
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
Betfred Championship 2021 ROUND : 14
 PLDFADIFFPTSDIFFWP%
Toulouse 9 433 88 345 18 492.05 100
Featherstone 13 573 166 407 26 345.18 100
Halifax 14 398 199 199 20 200 71.43
Bradford 13 354 315 39 18 112.38 69.23
LondonB 13 374 337 37 17 110.98 65.38
Batley 14 370 286 84 18 129.37 64.29
 
Widnes 13 307 344 -37 11 89.24 42.31
Newcastle 13 284 400 -116 11 71 42.31
Sheffield 14 313 413 -100 11 75.79 39.29
Whitehaven 14 277 396 -119 11 69.95 39.29
York 14 345 327 18 10 105.50 35.71
Dewsbury 13 197 379 -182 9 51.98 34.62
Oldham 13 190 470 -280 4 40.43 15.38
Swinton 14 234 529 -295 0 44.23 0
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
Betfred League One 2021 ROUND : 10
 PLDFADIFFPTSDIFFWP%
Barrow 10 342 150 192 17 228 85
Workington 9 334 158 176 15 211.39 83.33
Doncaster 9 308 189 119 14 162.96 77.78
Keighley 10 348 239 109 10 145.61 50
Rochdale 10 279 280 -1 10 99.64 50
Crusaders 10 278 318 -40 10 87.42 50
 
Coventry 8 204 240 -36 8 85 50
Hunslet 10 268 257 11 8 104.28 40
LondonS 8 154 292 -138 2 52.74 12.50
West Wales 10 122 514 -392 0 23.74 0
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
Betfred Womens Super League 2021 ROUND : 9
 PLDFADIFFPTSDIFFWP%
LeedsW 7 364 38 326 14 957.89 100
St.HelensW 7 370 36 334 12 1,027.78 85.71
WiganW 6 222 64 158 10 346.88 83.33
YorkW 6 186 102 84 8 182.35 66.67
CastlefordW 6 166 96 70 8 172.92 66.67
BradfordW 8 158 264 -106 6 59.85 37.50
 
Hudds W 7 104 288 -184 4 36.11 28.57
Wire W 8 150 334 -184 4 44.91 25
FeatherstoneW 8 122 338 -216 4 36.09 25
WakefieldW 7 50 332 -282 0 15.06 0
RLFANS Recent Posts




X